HomeCasesEFD USA, INC., et al. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc., et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

EFD USA, INC., et al. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc., et al.

CA California · Feb 18, 2026

CA / stateEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotescontractappellate

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant quoted Lilienthal as stating tests for distinct claims ('(1) times of services performed; (2) specific obligations involved; and (3) resulting damages'), but the quotation does not appear in Lilienthal and the case does not address settlement offsets. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant quoted Lilienthal as stating tests for distinct claims ('(1) times of services performed; (2) specific obligations involved; and (3) resulting damages'), but the quotation does not appear in Lilienthal and the case does not address settlement offsets. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant quoted Rudick as stating that failure to respond waives an objection; the cited Rudick decision does not include that quotation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant attributed a quotation about using extrinsic evidence to interpret a settlement reached in mediation (with arbitration clause) to Riverisland; the quoted language does not appear in Riverisland. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant attributed an objective-contract interpretation quotation to Leaf v. City of San Mateo; the Leaf opinion does not contain the quoted language and did not involve a contested contract. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited Milstein for the proposition 'a judgment by default admits all material allegations of the complaint,' but Milstein does not contain that language as quoted. || Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple additional fabricated quotations and inaccurate descriptions of legal authorities appeared across the opening and reply briefs, attributed by counsel to use of an AI system that altered citations during word-count reduction.
Why it matters now: AI word-count trimmers silently rewrite quotations; ban their use on filed briefs or force a final primary-source diff.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

AI word-count trimmers silently rewrite quotations; ban their use on filed briefs or force a final primary-source diff.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA California

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateFeb 18, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMonetary Sanction

Known amount$900

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Monetary Sanction

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant quoted Lilienthal as stating tests for distinct claims ('(1) times of services performed; (2) specific obligations involved; and (3) resulting damages'), but the quotation does not appear in Lilienthal and the case does not address settlement offsets.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant quoted Rudick as stating that failure to respond waives an objection; the cited Rudick decision does not include that quotation.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant attributed a quotation about using extrinsic evidence to interpret a settlement reached in mediation (with arbitration clause) to Riverisland; the quoted language does not appear in Riverisland.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant attributed an objective-contract interpretation quotation to Leaf v. City of San Mateo; the Leaf opinion does not contain the quoted language and did not involve a contested contract.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited Milstein for the proposition 'a judgment by default admits all material allegations of the complaint,' but Milstein does not contain that language as quoted.
Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple additional fabricated quotations and inaccurate descriptions of legal authorities appeared across the opening and reply briefs, attributed by counsel to use of an AI system that altered citations during word-count reduction.

Questions this record answers

What happened in EFD USA, INC., et al. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc., et al.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant quoted Lilienthal as stating tests for distinct claims ('(1) times of services performed; (2) specific obligations involved; and (3) resulting damages'), but the quotation does not appear in Lilienthal and the case does not address settlement offsets. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Why does EFD USA, INC., et al. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc., et al. matter for legal AI risk?: AI word-count trimmers silently rewrite quotations; ban their use on filed briefs or force a final primary-source diff.
What does the public record establish about EFD USA, INC., et al. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc., et al.?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this EFD USA, INC., et al. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc., et al. summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Howell Management Services, LLC v. Vashisht-RotaCA California · Dec 15, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Alejandro Rios v. Puente Hills FordCA California · Feb 17, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Christina BuenzliCA California · Dec 18, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Kingdom of Sweden v. Samantha Ashhadi SolimanCA California · Dec 1, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Peiman Shayan v. Ebby ShakibCA California · Dec 1, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes The People v. Raziel Ruiz AlvarezCA California · Oct 2, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

AI word-count trimmers silently rewrite quotations; ban their use on filed briefs or force a final primary-source diff.

Tracked discrepancy record

6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant quoted Rudick as stating that failure to respond waives an objection; the cited Rudick decision does not include that quotation.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant attributed a quotation about using extrinsic evidence to interpret a settlement reached in mediation (with arbitration clause) to Riverisland; the quoted language does not appear in Riverisland.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant attributed an objective-contract interpretation quotation to Leaf v. City of San Mateo; the Leaf opinion does not contain the quoted language and did not involve a contested contract.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited Milstein for the proposition 'a judgment by default admits all material allegations of the complaint,' but Milstein does not contain that language as quoted.

Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple additional fabricated quotations and inaccurate descriptions of legal authorities appeared across the opening and reply briefs, attributed by counsel to use of an AI system that altered citations during word-count reduction.

Questions this record answers

What happened in EFD USA, INC., et al. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc., et al.?

Why does EFD USA, INC., et al. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc., et al. matter for legal AI risk?

AI word-count trimmers silently rewrite quotations; ban their use on filed briefs or force a final primary-source diff.

What does the public record establish about EFD USA, INC., et al. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc., et al.?

Which source supports this EFD USA, INC., et al. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc., et al. summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.